|
One friend of mine and his female colleague were
entering the compound of a private construction firm
when they were stopped for a security check. My
friend had just finished being patted down and let
through when he noticed that his colleague was
already proceeding ahead of him without being
searched. He turned around to ask the man who had
just frisked him why she was being allowed to go in
without being searched. The man told him it was
because there were no female security personnel on
duty at the time.
The irony typified by this incident was not lost on
my friend. If the object of the security check was
to avert a real risk, the companion who happened to
be carrying a large purse, and thus able to conceal
a weapon, should have been the more likely candidate
to be searched.
"Fittesha",
which today seems to be conducted at the entrance to
every building, private or public, that purports to
be of any significance is a relatively new social
phenomenon. We know that one of the noticeable
outcomes of the much touted globalisation seems to
be the spread of paranoia, real or imagined, about
terrorism.
Is it possible that fittesha is a symptom of
this fast spreading collective neurosis?
It is an apt coincidence that the term fittesha is a
phonetic kin of the term 'fetish'; for this
phenomenon is becoming a veritable social fetish. In
the face of the apparent futility of most
fittesha, however, one cannot help but wonder if
it is a necessary security measure or an irrational
contagion that merely serves to humiliate and
alienate its subjects.
As a recent returnee from a long stay in the United
States (US) there are many questions that occur to
me every time I or someone else is subjected to
fittesha. Many of these questions are the same
questions I have been asking myself as I watched the
US succumb to fear and increasingly surrender
certain liberties in exchange for an illusive sense
of security.
In addition to the above indicated wonderment about
the necessity of fittesha, one can ask: who has the
authority to conduct such a search; under what
circumstances is such a search justified, if at all;
if not a violation of one's legal rights is it not,
at least, a rude invasion of one's privacy. The
questions go on.
Psychologists have observed that one of our
instinctive sensibilities is a protectiveness of a
perimeter of space around our bodies as private
territory. The radius of this space, they note,
varies depending on the circumstance in which we
find ourselves. People, it seems, tend to keep their
distance from and avoid physical contact with
strangers unless circumstance dictates otherwise.
You may notice, for example, that two unacquainted
individuals sitting at a public bench, or entering a
lift (an elevator) are likely to occupy positions as
far from one another as possible. If one of the
individuals were to situate himself inordinately
close to other in the absence of others in the
space, the second individual will, at minimum, feel
ill at ease. The same proximity causing discomfort
under these circumstances, however, will cause the
same individual no anxiety if the bench or lift were
more crowded.
If our natural tendency is to shirk unsolicited
intimate contact whenever possible, why then do we
sheepishly and routinely surrender to being frisked
by complete strangers without a hint of resistance
or protest? Is it because we have somehow bought
into the idea that fittesha is carried out for our
own good, or common security? If such is the case,
should we not complain about how inept and
ineffective fittesha is today?
Most fittesha I have observed stands little
chance of uncovering any security risk. I do not
know whether it is due to lack of proper training,
lack of motivation, or sheer lassitude most
fettashoch go about their work in an ineffective
and lackadaisical manner. With a few exceptions,
such as at the airports and the major hotels,
fittesha is no more than a pretence that serves
no greater purpose than make the fettash feel
a vain sense of authority over the tefettash.
What is more, the exercise is often discriminatory,
with some searched with vigour, albeit with
incompetence, while others are let through
untouched. It is this, combined with the obvious
futility and unnecessary inconvenience associated
with fittesha, that makes it puzzling, irritating
and often humiliating. Instead of making
people feel more secure, it makes them feel violated
and less free.
In all the years I lived in Ethiopia before going
abroad and in the first couple of decades I lived in
the US there was hardly anything like the current
concern about security. Unless my sense of reality
misses the mark, the threats to personal or
collective security are no greater today than they
were during those years. I always wonder why, all of
a sudden, every grocery store, boutique, restaurant
or office has become a potential target of a serious
security breach.
When privacy was gradually being compromised and the
slow erosion of civil liberties being legislated in
the US my gut feeling was that artificially fanned
fear and 'terrorism' were being used, by some in
government, as a pretext for invasively scrutinising
all individuals in order to gain greater control
over them. I doubt, for various reasons, the
motivation here in Ethiopia is the same.
For one thing, the fittesha here is nowhere
near as sophisticated, pervasive, or systematic as
it is in the US. For another, there hardly seems to
be any useful information gathered, analysed and
used for any purpose. I do not know where the
fittesha craze here could stem from other than
possibly from inane copy-cat behaviour.
What, you would be right to ask, do I suggest be
done about it?
Despite my general revulsion towards any form of
fittesha, I cannot in my right mind, and with
realistic expectation, suggest that it be eliminated
altogether. What I would like to see happen is that
rhyme and reason are injected into the extent and
manner in which it is carried out. It should be
either voluntarily dropped or prohibited from being
conducted in places where neither rational
justification for nor any tangible gain from it are
absent.
Not every petty-minded tibbeka should be
endowed with the de facto power to frisk anyone at
his or her whim. Where rational justification or
benefit from exercising it exists, fittesha
should be real; that is effective, respectful and
fair. Those who feel they have been subjected to an
improper or unnecessary fittesha should
resist it or lodge complaints with the proper
authorities (for example, the management of the
pertinent establishment). Businesses should realise
that customer dissatisfaction, rather than enhanced
security, is the more likely consequence of futile
fittesha.
I think we would all feel safer and freer if trust
rather than suspicion were fostered in our society.
I am confident we would be better served if we opt
to claim and preserve what privacy and civil
liberties we can as opposed to trade what little of
them we have for an uncertain security.
|
